Progressive Design-Build: Collaboration, Risk, and the Future of Infrastructure Delivery

The transportation construction sector is undergoing a fundamental shift in how projects are designed and delivered. With historic levels of federal infrastructure funding anticipated for highways, bridges, and transit systems, many public agencies are exploring progressive design-build (PDB) as a more flexible and collaborative alternative to traditional delivery methods.

Defining Progressive Design-Build
Progressive design-build is emerging as a bridge between traditional design-build (DB) and construction manager/general contractor (CM/GC) approaches. Unlike conventional design-build—where the contractor’s proposal is largely price-driven and based on developing design documents as the project proceeds —PDB emphasizes qualifications-based selection of the project team and early, integrated collaboration among the owner, engineer, and contractor.

The PDB model is particularly suited for complex, schedule-driven, or phased projects, where flexibility, real-time problem solving, and shared risk management are essential. Instead of an adversarial or transactional structure, PDB forms a unified project team committed to collective problem-solving and transparent decision-making.

Federal and State Adoption Trends
Although initial PDB projects were primarily state-funded, several agencies are now evaluating its potential for federally funded programs. Federal resource centers have been assisting states in navigating procurement procedures and ensuring compliance while encouraging innovation and shared accountability. However, transitioning to PDB requires a significant investment of time, personnel, and cultural adaptation. Agencies must be prepared to rethink established procedures and resist the temptation to revert to risk-shifting practices that have historically created inefficiencies and disputes in design-build delivery. Encouragingly, early adopters are beginning to recognize the benefits of shared risk ownership and the drawbacks of pushing excessive liability onto contractors and design teams.

Lessons from Early Implementations
Recent large-scale projects have demonstrated that PDB can dramatically improve efficiency and reduce delivery time. In one major highway widening effort, the PDB model shortened the development-to-construction timeline by approximately four months compared to traditional design-build delivery. By engaging the contractor early in design development and using independent cost estimators to reconcile budgets, project teams avoided redundant documentation and misalign assumptions. While starting from a “blank sheet of paper” can initially be uncomfortable for both owners and contractors, this early uncertainty fosters transparency, trust-building, and creativity. When properly managed, the process transforms the owner’s representative from a contract enforcer into a facilitator and advocate for the integrated team—shifting the focus from defending positions to achieving outcomes.

Cultural Shift in Ownership and Oversight
Progressive design-build challenges traditional owner-contractor dynamics. Rather than dictating prescriptive standards—such as specific materials, widths, or design features—owners are encouraged to define desired outcomes and performance goals. This outcome-oriented mindset promotes innovation and allows contractors and designers to tailor solutions that best meet functional objectives within available resources. The success of PDB depends heavily on owners’ willingness to “let go” of rigid preferences and engage in authentic collaboration. When owners define “what” success looks like rather than “how” it must be achieved, projects benefit from greater flexibility, improved morale, and fewer disputes.

Contractor and Designer Perspectives
From the contractors’ point of view, two recurring issues shape the success of any design-build or PDB project: standards of care, warranties, guarantees, and limits of liability. Contractors and engineers consistently advocate for clearer communication about why specific risks are allocated to certain parties. In many cases, establishing a risk register early in the procurement phase helps both sides identify and manage potential exposures transparently. There is a need to streamline design development, and QA/QC reviews processes and foster open technical dialogue early in project development. Excessive or conflicting plans have caused project delays, leading to claims and disputes. By engaging in structured conversations earlier, the project team can balance upfront clarity with pursueing innovative solutions as the project evolves.

Conclusion - Future Model
Progressive design-build is not a panacea, but it represents a critical evolution toward partnership-based project delivery. It rewards collaboration, emphasizes mutual accountability, and enables flexibility to adapt to unforeseen challenges. When executed with fairness and trust, it can reduce litigation, shorten schedules, and deliver projects that better serve the public interest. Progressive design-build is evolving and as more agencies embrace the model, the lessons from early adopters will continue to refine best practices leading to better outcomes and reduced risk. The message from the design and construction field is clear: shared risk and shared purpose lead to better results than traditional silos and one-sided contracts.